call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

Not trying to flame here, but logic dictates that once you score a touchdown (the ball crosses the goal line) then the play is over. How can you fumble the ball AFTER you score the touchdown? If this was the case, wouldn't spiking it be considered a fumble?

hawker84 wrote:call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it... i can't count how many td's have been scored in the last few years where the ball has been fumbled emmediately after the ball crossed the goal.

before you attack, don't get me wrong, i'm very grateful for the Rice and G Tate TD's yesterday, but i just think this game is getting too damn soft, can't touch qb's any more even when there outside the pocket, can't touch recievers any more, a slight hands to the face is a huge penalty... just go ahead and purchase the flags, because that's the direction this league is heading to, flag football..

guess i'm just longing for the old days, when football was about blood and guts, and players like Tatum and LT were to be feared when you cross the middle or run the ball.. guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.. your opinions?

I believe that rule has been in place since 1889...

In 1889, the provision requiring the ball to actually be touched to the ground was removed. A touchdown was now scored by possessing the ball beyond the goal line.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

Seriously, I think the players are so much bigger and faster now than they were then, that if they were allowed to play that way, someone would literally get killed on the field.

49ers webzone: Win or lose, i hope you injure Sherman. Like a serious career ending injury. I don't want him to get paid.49ers webzone: noise should not be the overwhelming reason a team is favored. they need to spray noise-damping foam onto the ceiling of that place.

true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

hawker84 wrote:true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

not everyones cup of tea, JMO

I guess the problem I am having with your argument is...the NFL has never been that way. It has always been as long as I can remember, and from everything I have ever seen/read, if the ball breaks the plane it is game over. The difference I guess now is instant replay (and reviewing every score) changes the dynamic of calling a TD or fumble in real time. That doesn't mean the rules are different though, in regards to a ball crossing the plane of the goal line, so your point is ultimately moot.

If anything they have made it MORE towards what you are describing with needing to complete the act of the catch all the way though, and things like that.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

hawker84 wrote:true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

not everyones cup of tea, JMO

If you are in the endzone when you are making a catch, you must still continue through to make the catch legal before it's a touchdown. The defense can knock the ball out or knock you out of bounds to make it not a catch and therefor not a touchdown. This is the rule and has been enforced many times.

i hear what you're saying, and i could be wrong, i just think you should clearly maintain possesion of the ball as it's crossing the plane, or when you come down from a catch.. seems like cheap TD's to me...

hawker84 wrote:true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

not everyones cup of tea, JMO

If you are in the endzone when you are making a catch, you must still continue through to make the catch legal before it's a touchdown. The defense can knock the ball out or knock you out of bounds to make it not a catch and therefor not a touchdown. This is the rule and has been enforced many times.

seen it called both ways this year.. guy caught the ball came down with two feet was hit emmediately, and as he was falling out of bounds, the ball was clearly knocked loose, it was called a td because he came down with two feet.... even though the defender dislodged the ball...

hawker84 wrote:call me old fashioned or whatever, but i hate that rule, where only the ball has to cross the plane to be considered a touchdown.. i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possession of it... guess i'm just getting old and stuck in my ways.

Based on the 1889 rule change, you ARE getting old... much older than you look in your avatar.

It's *always* been "ball, in possession of the player, must break the plane to score a touchdown".

And I've been watching NFL Football since the early 60's (B&W TV and only one game televised per week... no blackout rules back then either). I grew up in suburban Chicago a Bears fan. I remember the day that the Bears drafted Dick Butkus, Mike Ditka and Gale Sayers... not all on the same day, of course.

hawker84 wrote:i hear what you're saying, and i could be wrong, i just think you should clearly maintain possesion of the ball as it's crossing the plane, or when you come down from a catch.. seems like cheap TD's to me...

You do realize that is what the rules state? If you have possession of the ball once crossing the plane, or maintain control through the catch in the endzone, the play is over. If you are losing the possession of the ball as you break the plane, or going to the ground during a catch, no touchdown. Those are the rules, and in case of breaking the plane with the ball, that has been the case as football has existed in its current form. So I am not sure exactly what you are trying to argue for, or what was different when you played. Once the play is considered dead, it doesn't matter what happens to the ball afterwards.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

Actually, Jeremy Shockey caught the ball in the endzone in the center and a split second after his feet touched, he was nailed and the ball dislodged. Results......touchdown. The rule for that game was, he caught the ball in the air, had possession, and the second both feet touched, the play is over resulting in a touchdown.

I think its a crap rule, and should have went the other way. But that was the way they ruled it and that dick Mike Peroeirerarra said at the time is what the correct call

my point is , i don't like the rule... not trying to make it hard to understand? i don't like it, that's just my opinion.. i think a player should maintain possesion of the ball, just like any other play on the field.. you're entitled to disagree..

tonyseahawk wrote:Actually, Jeremy Shockey caught the ball in the endzone in the center and a split second after his feet touched, he was nailed and the ball dislodged. Results......touchdown. The rule for that game was, he caught the ball in the air, had possession, and the second both feet touched, the play is over resulting in a touchdown.

I think its a crap rule, and should have went the other way. But that was the way they ruled it and that dick Mike Peroeirerarra said at the time is what the correct call

I didn't see the play and can't comment on whether it was the correct call or not, but what it sounds like here is an issue with the interpretation of the rules, not the rule itself. As we saw yesterday (and many other times through Seahawks history), the officials are human, and they often interpret the play a little differently than what we think it should be. It's the nature of the beast and will ALWAYS give us something to complain about week in and week out.

AbsolutNET wrote:What does Jack Tatum have to do with the ball breaking the plane of the goal line?

You don't sound old because you don't like a rule, you sound old because you started talking about one thing and ended up talking about something totally unrelated.

the whole post was in reference to the league is getting soft, using that rule as one of the examples.. all these ticky tack fouls and calls/rulings makes it harder for me to enjoy the game.. the game was played differently back in the tatum and LT days,, do you not agree?

AbsolutNET wrote:What does Jack Tatum have to do with the ball breaking the plane of the goal line?

You don't sound old because you don't like a rule, you sound old because you started talking about one thing and ended up talking about something totally unrelated.

the whole post was in reference to the league is getting soft, using that rule as one of the examples.. all these ticky tack fouls and calls/rulings makes it harder for me to enjoy the game.. the game was played differently back in the tatum and LT days,, do you not agree?

I think the game was officiated differently, of course. The game itself has evolved and changed and I dont think anyone disagrees with how you feel about the amount of new rules we've seen over the past 4 or 5 years. I just don't understand how the goal line rule relates in any way and was just bustin your balls for being a meandering geriatric.

hawker84 wrote:my point is , i don't like the rule... not trying to make it hard to understand? i don't like it, that's just my opinion.. i think a player should maintain possesion of the ball, just like any other play on the field.. you're entitled to disagree..

Maintain possession of the ball until when? Until the play is over, correct? Once the ball breaks the plane, the play is over. End discussion.

TDOTSEAHAWK wrote:They actually used to get killed on the field. Between 1900 and 1910 there more than 50 on field deaths in football.

Most of them were skull fractures, I believe. One of the reason why the argument to go back to LESS head protection never flew with me. Yeah it would make players stop using their helmets as weapons, but skull fractures are way worse than concussions.

tonyseahawk wrote:Actually, Jeremy Shockey caught the ball in the endzone in the center and a split second after his feet touched, he was nailed and the ball dislodged. Results......touchdown. The rule for that game was, he caught the ball in the air, had possession, and the second both feet touched, the play is over resulting in a touchdown.

I think its a crap rule, and should have went the other way. But that was the way they ruled it and that dick Mike Peroeirerarra said at the time is what the correct call

I remember this play, was in the stadium when it happened. It shouldn't have been a TD, and I believe the subsequent rules that have been put in place would make it an incompletion in today's game.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

i am a meandering geriatric, it has to be true.. i get pumped up when i see a flippin grass stain these days... how'd i get so old, where did the time go.. lol don't even get me started on the touchdown celebrations...

FTW, i understand how the rule works, i simply don't like it, you're putting to much thought into it my friend... i ain't mad at you tho bro, you've got the best Sig on the .Net

edited for spelling

Last edited by hawker84 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

You are thinking about it wrong. Lets say you get two feet down in the end zone, and then fumble. That shouldn't count? Just like when the player is down, as soon as the requirements for a TD are satisfied the play ends. If you have possession while 1 inch of the ball gets in, you fulfilled the requirements. Makes perfect sense to me.

FTW, i understand how the rule works, i simply don't like it, you're putting to much thought into it my friend...

Or maybe you aren't putting enough into it?

You said this: "i played in an era where not only the ball had to cross the plane, you had to actually maintain possesion of it"

The rule for the ball crossing the plane (and subsequently the play being over) has been in place since 1889. So I HIGHLY doubt you played in an era that is different than today's rules regarding that. You also vaguely state that you think you should have to "maintain possession" and I ask, up until when? Some arbitrary point AFTER the ball has crossed the end line? That doesn't make any sense, and is contrary to the way football has been played for 100+ years.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

jeeezzz.. agian , i UNDERSTAND the rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and i understand it's been in place for a long time.......

let's just say when i played, you made sure you secured the ball before,during, and after breaking the plane..... and yes i've had td's taken off the board for fumbling after i've crossed the plane.. i was a reciever in case you were wondering...

Last edited by hawker84 on Mon Dec 03, 2012 10:43 am, edited 1 time in total.

I know the old football rule was based on rugby, and was abolished years and years ago. I am sorry I didn't read the whole thread. Just wanted to chime in if nobody else did. It is called a "try", and you have to go over the line and physically place the ball on the ground to score. It is one of the few things I remember from my physical education classes for teachers. We had to learn about so many different sports and how they were related and developed from each other and so on. It was seriously a difficult class because the guy who taught it has a doctorate in sports science and has a history degree and made sure we knew EVERY game on the planet. I believe the breaking the plane rule came into place a long time ago, like seriously in the days when they just started with the forward pass.

If anything the rules have changed the other way, where now you're required to keep holding onto a ball when you hit out of bounds, and that rule didn't used to be in place. It seems you just had to have possession in bounds and it didn't matter what happened out, and there was also a force out rule that no longer exists.

hawker84 wrote:jeeezzz.. agian , i UNDERSTAND the rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and i understand it's been in place for a long time.......

let's say when i played, you made sure you possed the ball before,during, and after breaking the plane..... and yes i've had td's taken off the board for fumbling after i've crossed the plane.. i was a reciever in case you were wondering...

Like I said in my first post, the difference is most likely calling a game real time without having instant replay to back up the call. A lot of the time I think refs lean on instant replay in situations like you are describing, and it has become a crutch. Human error doesn't change the rule though, and that is what I am saying.

As for you understanding the rule and how long it has been in place, you could have fooled me

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

When I first started playing foots, a player's 'forward progress' had to be stopped before he was considered 'down.' Can you imagine Lynch in such a scenario? In college it was the 'knee down' rule, but not in the pros.

While I miss some of the old, blood, snot, and teeth, flying about, I also understand the NFL is a business. A business which tries to protect it's investments.

2 cents.

If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

finally, we can end the discussion on an agreement.. absolutely instant replay and human error play a big part in the calls these days... there's plenty of rules and rule changes established with the modern game i don't agree with, that rule being one of many...

OP is avoiding the quesiton everyone is asking him. Maintain the ball, UNTIL WHEN? Does he have to hold the ball until he walks off the field towards his teammates? Or does he need to control it until after the game ends? So is OP in favor of spiking the ball in celebration being called a fumble? Make your point clear OP, when do you think the play should be ruled over?

therealjohncarlson wrote:OP is avoiding the quesiton everyone is asking him. Maintain the ball, UNTIL WHEN? Does he have to hold the ball until he walks off the field towards his teammates? Or does he need to control it until after the game ends? So is OP in favor of spiking the ball in celebration being called a fumble? Make your point clear OP, when do you think the play should be ruled over?

how about it's over , just like when a play is over on the playing field... i don't have a problem with players diving across the corner of the endzone and putting the ball over the pileon, kind of like the tight end for the steelers did yesterday... but say a running back tries to dive over the pile and reaches the ball out over the line, and it gets dislodged i feel should be ruled a fumble...

if a reciever comes down with two feet in bounds, gets blasted and holds onto the ball, TD, if it becomes dislodged imcomplete pass, (i've seen this called a TD this year, more than once)

so to answer your question, i don't have a clear answer (one step, two steps i don't know), other than, maintain posession after crossing the line..

how about it's over , just like when a play is over on the playing field... i don't have a problem with players diving across the corner of the endzone and putting the ball over the pileon, kind of like the tight end for the steelers did yesterday... but say a running back tries to dive over the pile and reaches the ball out over the line, and it gets dislodged i feel should be ruled a fumble...

if a reciever comes down with two feet in bounds, gets blasted and holds onto the ball, TD, if it becomes dislodged imcomplete pass, (i've seen this called a TD this year, more than once)

so to answer your question, i don't have a clear answer (one step, two steps i don't know), other than, maintain posession after crossing the line..

No offense, but you aren't doing yourself any favors here. Just let it be.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

hawker84 wrote:sorry i don't like the rule, if you have a problem with that, they're plenty other threads..

It isn't that, I don't care one way or another. But from the very start claiming that the rules were different when you played, to not having any real semblance of what should and shouldn't be considered maintaining possession in your opinion, your argument comes out flat. We can talk about what rules we like and dislike all day long, there are many that I think are stupid and detract from the game. It is just odd to hear someone denounce a rule that has been in place for so long and is a fundamental part of the game at all levels.

Either way, I think this thread has run its course. Have a good day, hopefully you are enjoying the win to the fullest.

cboom wrote:Wilson is the worst QB I have seen as a Hawks fan. And I have been around long enough to see them all.

Want to take this to another level? Would the NFL be as popular, and would teams throw the ball as much as they do now if the rules reverted to where every incomplete forward pass was like a lateral, a free ball, and whoever got to it first had possession?

Any rule that takes away referee judgement is a good thing IMO. "Breaking the plane" is a very simple thing to review, either the ball crossed the line or not. When you start bringing in judgement about possession, then that gives the refs and review officials more changes to screw up the call.

I understand what the OP is saying on an emotional level even though he hasnt really thought out his platform. Whats funny though is that I disagree with what hes saying mostly on an emotional level. I am generally for things that make the game more exciting and imo theres not many things more exciting than a player heroically diving for the endzone in hopes of just crossing that goal line. Like Tates play for example. He weaved through multiple players and put his body on the line to dive head first into the endzone. You would see a lot less of that if they made OPs suggested rule change. Players would worry more about protecting the ball going into the endzone, so Tate would have likely just tried to run in and would have came up a couple yards short.

hawker84 wrote:sorry i don't like the rule, if you have a problem with that, they're plenty other threads..

It isn't that, I don't care one way or another. But from the very start claiming that the rules were different when you played, to not having any real semblance of what should and shouldn't be considered maintaining possession in your opinion, your argument comes out flat. We can talk about what rules we like and dislike all day long, there are many that I think are stupid and detract from the game. It is just odd to hear someone denounce a rule that has been in place for so long and is a fundamental part of the game at all levels.

Either way, I think this thread has run its course. Have a good day, hopefully you are enjoying the win to the fullest.

never said the rules were different, i said it was not enforced the same, at least not in the leagues i played in... and just because a rule has been around for 100+ years doesn't mean it's a good one. but i do agree with Largent, putting more reviews in the hands of the officials could cause more harm than good..

bottom line, we all have our difference of opinions on rules that would or would not improve the game, what's exciting to watch for you persay, could be unexciting for me... some are into stats, some just wins and loss's... i have absolute zero problem with people disagreeing with my opinions.. something i've always thought of lately , and wanted to see what others thought. that's all.

i love the death defying, whirley bird , flipporama td's as much as the next person, just wished they'd hang on to the ball a little more once they landed..

A lot of things are upgraded as time goes on. In "the day" computers were as big as Volkswagen's, casette tapes were revolutionary, and women wore frumpy clothing. Now, you can drive to your nearest gas station and buy coffee from an aspiring porn star while browsing the web on your mobile device all while never leaving the confines of your vehicle.

I like the rule, if the defense actually made a play, the guy wouldn't be in the position to score anyway. It isn't without benefits for the defense. If a RB thinks he is close he may reach the ball out and get it stolen before the line (something we see a lot of the time). For every Rice fumble after crossing the goal line there is one of these: http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/179834941.html

hawker84 wrote:true, they're getting killed now.. crossing the plane then fumbling i can kind of see, but if you're stretching out for the goal line and fumbled should be a fumble, or if you're in the air, catch the ball, get hit as you land and the ball is dislodged , i think the defense made the play and should be awarded the stop... ]

not everyones cup of tea, JMO

If you are in the endzone when you are making a catch, you must still continue through to make the catch legal before it's a touchdown. The defense can knock the ball out or knock you out of bounds to make it not a catch and therefor not a touchdown. This is the rule and has been enforced many times.

How long has this rule been in effect anyway? I remember in 05 against the Giants, jeremy shockey jumped up and caught a pass in the endzone and only the tips of his toes came to the ground for a split second before he was blown up by Marquand Manuel and the ball came loose. The play was reviewed and called a TD.

First of all more interpretation = more ways the Seahawks can get screwed. We get screwed enough on what shouldn't be an interpretation.

To the last post - two rules

1) having possession outside the end zone and bringing it in. The play is over when the player crosses the plane if the end zone.

2) catching it in the end zone. Catch and come to the ground with full control of the ball / maintaining possession as you go to the ground even if you land out of bounds (feet in bound). Rule was clarified a few years ago and subsequently the lions were screwed after Calvin Johnson put the ball on the ground after a one-handed catch